Free antivirus vs. paid antivirus - Is there a small, big or no difference.

Norton Internet Security 2010

Fast, finely tuned, and a little flawed

We took some heat after awarding last year’s version of Norton Internet Security our coveted Kick Ass award. Some of you were baffled at how Norton, a notorious resource hog and semi-effective scanner, could turn things around in such dramatic fashion. Others questioned our geek cred, while a few of you even accused us of being on the take—ouch. But the truth is, Symantec deserved every accolade it received. Could this be the dawn of a new AV dynasty in the Norton camp?

We’re not yet ready to anoint Norton the savior of security software, and we’ll tell you why in a moment. First, let’s focus on what NIS 2010 does right. This year’s update continues NIS’s reborn legacy as a lean and fast scanner. We remain particularly impressed with Norton Insight, which dramatically reduces system scans. The first time NIS sweeps through your system, it examines every file. Each time thereafter, the scanner skips files that have been validated by Symantec and deemed trustworthy. The result? After an initial scan time of 16 minutes, 18 seconds, NIS then scurried through our data in just four minutes, 47 seconds, finishing long before our coffee break did.

NIS thwarted most of our attempts to find a chink in its armor, knocking out spyware and batting away disreputable downloads without skipping a beat. That is, until we played dirty. We disabled NIS long enough to download a contaminated archive and then turned it back on. Norton only blocked some of the infected files inside our Pandora’s box, allowing our test bed to become infected with a fake AV scanner. It even allowed the rogue program to disable UAC.

We have a hard time picturing anyone going through the trouble we did to intentionally inflict harm, but nevertheless, our confidence is shaken.

Pros: Norton Insight reduces length of future system scans by validating trustworthy files the first time.

Cons: It couldn't effectively block the contaminated archive that we installed.

Rating 7/10

source: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/norton_internet_security_2010

McAfee Internet Security 2010

Rodney Dangerfield of AV finally earns our respect

When McAfee told us it completely re-engineered its security suite from top to bottom, we agreed to include it in this roundup knowing full well we had probably been duped like the guy who drives off the used-car lot without a warranty. We were wrong.

To our eyes, this is a completely revamped McAfee. MIS 2010 rolls off the lot with a much-improved UI over previous versions, and manages to balance ease of use with a high level of customization. For those who care to do so, McAfee makes it easy to dig deeper into each of the main menu’s modules, but you’ll never feel lost or overwhelmed.

Underneath the hood sits a more performance-oriented engine than what you would expect from a McAfee product. Where last year’s version felt like a dilapidated Pinto, the 2010 model has all the makings of a sporty sedan. To reduce the time it takes to scan a system, McAfee caches files and puts together a white list of files it can safely skip. Depending on how clogged your hard drive is, McAfee claims this can result in up to eight-times-faster scans (we saw a 50 percent improvement).

Adding value to an already fleshed-out security suite, McAfee includes a few thoughtful extras, including 1GB of online backup space. There’s also a QuickClean module, which streamlines the process of deleting temporary files, and a file shredder for more securely deleting your data.

McAfee cruised through our malware tests with little incident—that is, until it let a malicious file write a registry entry blocking access to the Task Manager. To McAfee’s credit, it did neutralize the actual virus responsible, but the fact that it let a program write to our registry worries us, and cost the product a 9 verdict and a Kick Ass award.

Pros: Reduces scan time by creating a list of files it can safely skip. 1GB online backup space. Customizable UI.

Cons: It allowed a malicious file to write a registry entry.

Rating 8/10

Source: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/mcafee_internet_security_2010

ESET Smart Security 4

This newest version brings more of the same, and we're OK with that

Like Norton, ESET Smart Security walked away with a Kick Ass award in last year’s roundup, so we were eager to see how the two security suites would compare when pitted against each other in our second annual AV battle royal.

Through the first few rounds of testing, it was near impossible to declare a winner. Both apps remained light on their feet by barely sipping system resources before the two began trading blows. ESET won a round by adding six fewer seconds than Norton did to our system boot time (+14 seconds versus +20 seconds, respectively), but Norton’s a more polished fighter. What do we mean?

ESET lacks a few features found in Norton, including identity protection and parental controls. And while ESET managed to scan our test bed in a little less than eight minutes, which is half the time it took Norton during its first run, ESET doesn’t skip over trusted files to reduce subsequent sweeps, so it’s not nearly as fast in the long run.

But just when it looked like Norton might squeak out a victory, ESET threw an uppercut from which Norton never recovered. Unlike its rival, we weren’t able to dupe ESET into letting us turn our test bed into a haven for pop-ups. We tried the same tactic that stymied Norton—disabling the AV software just long enough to download an archive brimming with malware—but ESET stopped us dead in our tracks before we could unleash a flurry of trouble onto our hard drive. Bravo!

There really isn’t much to fault in ESET. Not a whole lot has changed since last year’s version, and in this case, that’s not a bad thing. Experienced users will still find a plethora of options in the advanced menu, and malware still stands little chance of running amok.

Pros: Adds fewer seconds to boot time than Norton. Didn't allow us to unleash malware.

Cons: Lacks parental controls and identity protection.

Rating 9/10

Source: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/eset_smart_security_4

vavog said:

Just my 2 cents (being the geek I am)...

Norton is rated as the best antivirus and from experience its likely the best at removing those pesky bugs if/when you get them. That being said, its is also the biggest resource hog so you better have a somewhat newer machine if you are gonna run that.

Free AVG is a good detector, as is Free Avast. That being said, they are both in business to make money so there is no possible way the free version is identical to the paid version. My understanding is that the paid versions offer better (full) virus removal tools.

Not sure what Bell offers, but the free Rogers Antivirus is just 2 year old Norton and it sucks.

Lastly, Microsoft.... have yet to find anyone who was actually saved by this product. Sure, you haven't got a virus since you may have installed it.. but that doesn't mean the tool is working, does it! I'd be cautious about this product if you are that worried about viruses and such.

Click to expand...

seems you're not the geek you proclaim to be. all reviews contradict what you say

http://download.cnet.com/Microsoft-Security-Essentials/3000-2239_4-10969260.html
Independent test numbers for Security Essentials weren't available at the time of writing, although OneCare scored high detection rates. On a real-world machine, the Quick Scan completed in less than 30 seconds. Benchmarking tests from CNET Labs reveal that Security Essentials actually makes starting up and shutting down faster, but the Full Scan is much slower than many competitors. RAM usage was not insignificant, with 85 to 90MB used during a full scan, but it felt lighter. Security Essentials is basically a good set-it-and-forget-it security program, but if you want more options, you should look elsewhere.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...e/microsoft-security-essentials-640587/review
The real-time scanner is effective. We started a download of a zipped version of the Eicars test virus, and MSE was offering to clean it off our test PC before it had even finished downloading.


http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-anti-virus-software.htm
Microsoft Security Essentials is my personal favorite; with good detection rates, particularly for rootkits. Even more impressive is that Security Essentials has very few false positives, is light on resources and is good at removal of existing malware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials
The official release of Microsoft Security Essentials, however, fared better in AV-Test.org test: It detected and caught 98.44 percent of 545,034 computer viruses, computer worms and software Trojan horses as well as 90.95 percent of 14,222 spyware and adware samples. It also detected and eliminated all 25 tested rootkits. It generated no false-positive at all.[30]
On 7 January 2010, Microsoft Security Essentials won the PC Advisor's Best Free Software award.[31]

I stand by my recommendation of Microsoft Security Essentials as a freeware solution outperforming MOST Anti Virus you pay for. and it is the highest rated Freeware Anti Virus package

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-anti-virus-software.htm
AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition deserves a special mention because it is so popular. Although this venerable antivirus was once highly regarded, I feel that in recent times, although it is not bad, it is not comparable to the above mentioned free antivirus software. It has grown considerably in size and resource usage, has very slow scan speeds and also advertisements (but they can be disabled).

Thanks for that research AM. That is really helpful, considering I am currently on AVG. It might be a good idea to switch.

Great research, AnimalMagnetism. The free ones available are all pretty solid, never tried a paid one. I currently use Microsoft Security Essentials and it catches everything. I could not say the same for Avast and AVG however.